An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, illegal, or ignore material evidence, especially where a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of the accused and the prosecution evidence is inconclusive.

STATE OF GUJARAT

Versus

SINDHI DAFER IBRAHIM JUMA & ORS.

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 12.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp at Patan (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.211 of 1997, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused No.1 to 7 (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”).

2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.10.1994 Near Shankheswar, about two milometers from Shankheswar, around 21 hours at night, when the S.T. bus reached near a canal on the highway from Ratanpur towards Shankheswar, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-01-Z-2641 was standing in front of the bus and on otherside a cement pipe was lying, blocking both the sides, which obstructing the traffic and when the vehicles stopped at that place, the accused came there and stopped the bus and tried to enter into the bus committed an offence of dacoity and robbery and because of the truck lying ahead of the S. T. bus, the S.T. Bus could not over take the truck and in the result, two unknown persons opened the door of the bus at the driver side and started abusing the driver and tried to assault upon the driver. Thereafter, another person had come to the conductor side and broken the windshield of the conductor seat, from which the persons have opened the lock from the inside and entered into S.T. Bus have committed dacoity and robbery. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the complainant before Sami Police Station and it has been registered as I - C.R.No.163 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 114 etc of IPC and police started investigation. The police prepared inquest panchnama as well as panchnama of scene of offence in presence of panchas. The accused were arrested and muddamals were discovered in presence of panchas. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 17 for the aforesaid offences. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp at Patan.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-